IK 

[75 

} 191 

oyyZ 


FT MEADE 

CenCol1 


































68th ConoRESs, I HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 1 ? t ep °® t 

1st Session. \ . \ No. 49. 

U o \*\ovr. 


MINIMUM WAGE BILL. 


June 19, 1919.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the 
Union and ordered to be printed. 




j Mr. Nolan, from the Committee on Labor, submitted the following 

REPORT. 

[To accompany H. R. 5726.] 

The Committee on Labor, to which was referred the bills (H. R. 
1235 and H. R. 5726) introduced by Mr. Nolan to fix the compensa¬ 
tion of certain employees of the United States, having considered the 
; same, report thereon with the recommendation that it pass. 

The bill as reported by the committee reads as follows: 

A BILL To fix the compensation of certain employees of the United States. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That after the passage of this act the minimum compensation 
of any person employed by the United States or by the government of the District 
of Columbia shall be not less than $3 per day; or if employed by the hour not less than 
37£ cents per hour; or if employed by the month not less than $90 per month; or if 
employed by the year not less than $1,080 per annum: Provided, That persons em¬ 
ployed on a monthly or annual salary basis and who regularly perform less than a 
: full day’s service shall receive compensation at the rate of not less than 37£ cents 
i per hour: Provided further, That the provisions of this act shall not apply to persons 
| enlisted in the military or naval branches of the Government nor to the employees 
! in the Philippine Islands, Porto Rico, the Territory of Hawaii, the Territory of Alaska, 
and the Panama Canal Zone, nor to persons holding appointments as postmasters, 
assistant postmasters, rural carriers, postal clerks, carriers in the City Delivery Service, 
or rail-way mail clerks: Provided further, That the provisions of this act shall apply 
only to those persons who shall have attained the age of eighteen years: And provided 
further, That in the case of an employee receiving quarters and subsistence in addition 
to his compensation, the value of such quarters and subsistence shall be determined 
by the head of the department, and the compensation of such employees, plus the 
value of quarters and subsistence, shall in no event be less than the rate fixed by this 
act. 

Sec. 2. That upon the passage of this act the heads of departments in which are 
employed persons as defined in section 1 of this act shall issue new appointments 
at the increased rate of compensation herein provided. 

Friday, June 6, was set by the committee for hearings on H. R. 
1235. At that time the representatives of a number of organizations 
appeared in behalf of the bill. 

Present before the committee: Mr. Luther C. Steward, of Wash¬ 
ington, D. C., president National Federation of Federal Employees; 
Mr. Charles F. Nagl, fifth vice president National Federation of 










2 


MINIMUM WAGE BILL. 




<V 

c#\\ 

Federal Employees, of Glen Ellyn, Ill.; Miss Ethel M. Smith, secretary 
legislative committee National Women’s Trade Union League; Miss 
Gertrude M. McNally, secretary Women’s Union, Bureau of Engraving 
and Printing, Washington, D. C., affiliated with the National Fed¬ 
eration of Federal Employees; Miss Cora McCarty, Grade Teachers’ 
Union; Miss May Bradshaw, High School Teachers’ Union; Mr. 
William B. Baird, public store No. 1, Customs Service, Baltimore, 
Md.; Mr. Frederick W. Winslow, United States customhouse, Bal¬ 
timore, Md., Federal Employees’ Union, No. 21; Octavius Dix, rep¬ 
resenting scale force, Baltimore, Md., Federal Employees’ Union, No. 
21; Mr. William F. Franklin, vice president Federal Employees’ 
Union, No. 89, Washington, D. C.; Mr. Richard Taylor, Federal Em¬ 
ployees’ Union, No. 71, Washington, D. C.; Miss Kate V. Smoot, 
Bindery Women’s Union; Elizabeth Hayden, Grade Teachers’ Union; 
Mr. Norman Sprague, Printing Pressman’s Union, No. 1; Mr. William 
E. Griffith, fourth vice president National Federation of Federal 
Employees; Mr. Roy E. Peabody, national organizer, National Fed¬ 
eration of Federal Employees; Mr. Henry Raines, Federal Guard and 
Watchmen’s Union; George Warren, Federal Employees’ Union, No. 
2; Mathew Thompson, Federal Employees’ Union, No. 21, of Balti¬ 
more, Md.; Misses Belle A. Trouland, Mary Brickhead, Lillian Gray, 
Katherine Tracy, Lula Dewey, Ella Walters, and Mabel Rackey, 
Women’s Union, Bureau of Engraving and Printing, Washington, 
D. C. 

The following organizations also by letter indorsed the bill: 
American Federation of Labor, National Federation of Post-Office 
Clerks, National Association of Letter Carriers. The bill has also 
received the indorsement of successive conventions of the American 
Federation of Labor for the last seven years. 

Practically every State federation of labor and local central council 
of labor in this country has recorded itself in favor of this legislation 
during the last six years. 

A bill similar in character passed the House in the Sixty-fifth 
Congress, with only 14 negative votes cast against it. 

This bill was ordered reintroduced and reported favorably by the 
committee, after the following changes had been adopted: The age 
limit was reduced from 20 to 18 years, and the two-year probation 
period eliminated; the bill was also made to apply to those em¬ 
ployees of the civil establishment who receive quarters or subsistence 
or both ; deduction being made for the value of the quarters or sub¬ 
sistence. The bill also differs from the bill that passed the Sixty- 
fifth Congress, because it takes effect immediately instead of the 
beginning of the fiscal year following the passage of this act. 

If the Sixty-fifth Congress was justified in passing a bill of this 
kind during the war period and before the armistice was signed, 
there is ample justification for the Sixty-sixth Congress to pass this 
bill with the various changes immediately. 

Instead of prices decreasing, as a great many predicted during the 
debate on this bill in the last Congress, since the armistice was signed 
prices of commodities in many instances have increased, and in the 
District of Columbia the landlords are awaiting the signing of the 
peace treaty, when they will not be bound by the Saulsbury law, to 
increase the rents so that they will more than eat up the additional 
bonus of $120 which goes into effect the 1st of July, 1919. 

T). 

JON 2/4919 


MINIMUM WAGE BILL. 


3 



tThis bill will benefit the lowest paid employees of the Government 
of the United States not alone in the District of Columbia but all over 
the United States and tend to relieve the privation and distress in the 
homes of these employees. Abundant testimony to show these con¬ 
ditions can be found in the various hearings held on this bill before 
the House and Senate committees. 

As justification for the minimum wage provided in this bill, there 
is here appended the statement of Mr. W. F. Ogburn, statistical 
expert of the War Labor Board: 

[From Senate hearings on Johnson-Nolan bill, Jan. 28,1919.] 

Mr. Ogburn. I understand, Mr. Chairman, that you want some data for your 
committee bearing on the question of what is a living wage at the present time, and I 
understand that that was the purpose that your chairman asked me to come here to-day. 

It has been my good fortune to have studied that question somewhat during the 
past eight or nine months as an expert for the National War Labor Board. To come to 
the question at once, the problem is to find out what is a minimum standard of living, 
we will say, for a family of five, a man and his wife and three children. Now, you 
can very readily see that if one is asked what is the standard of living for a family of 
five, that we would get into the question of opinion a good deal, but as an expert 
or a statistician the problem is to find out first, rather by ob jective standards, if possible, 
what is this living wage, rather than what you might call subjective standards. If you 
were to ask a radical what is the standard of living, he might put the figure up very 
high; and if you were to ask a conservative what is the standard of living, he might 
put the figure below which we should not fall, and would push the figure fairly low, 
but our idea in making it is to get at it from an objective point of view, find out where 
the present cost is. 

Taking the food, for instance, our idea is to allow a person enough food. Now, a 
man working at normal physical labor to-day should probably have about 3,500 
calories of food a day. Our Army allows a man in the ranks between 4,000 and 5,000 
calories a day. The British and the French both allow their men more than 3,500 
calories per man per day. Some units of Italians are allowed a little under 3,500, but 
most experts figure that many are necessary for a man to do good work. A man work¬ 
ing in the woods, a man chopping dowh trees, or working at such violent work as that, 
would need about 5,000 calories a day, but if we take 3,500 calories a day we would 
be on a pretty reasonable basis as to what a person ought to have in order to be well 
fed. There ought to be a certain amount of iron and phosphates and sulphates, and 
there ought to be so much fat and proteins, and it ought to be balanced. 

Without going into these things in detail, I will say that last summer I had com¬ 
piled a dietary taken from 600 families living in New York City, and had it analyzed, 
and it cost $605 per year last summer, and I had that analyzed, and it yielded only 
3,100 calories. It is pretty certain that, a family purchasing food would have to pay, 
for a family of three, more than $600 a year. That is to say, that the food would have 
to cost, in order to get them enough calories, more than $600 a year. You can get a 
cheap diet if you specialize in cereals, but a cereal diet is not very good for one, 
because it does not contain the necessary minerals and waste matters. There were 
three other dietaries made, which showed that it cost nearly the same, taking into 
consideration the meat and the vegetables and the cereals. So I think that it is safe 
to figure on that, that a family ought to have food enough, and that, food must cost over 
$600 a year. However, that was made last summer, and that would contemplate that 
the prices have remained stationary for nearly a year, but as a matter of fact the prices 
have gone up since last summer. 

Now, we can go down the line with the various items of the budget and figure on 
clothing so much, and allow a man but one hat a year, and one cap a year, and one 
suit a year, and so on, and we can allow, when we fix these budgets, we can allow for 
so many overalls and so many gloves and socks, and the clothing allowance can be 
determined in some such way as that,. Then the only way that you can tell whether 
the clothing allowance is just is to look at the goods. Various tests could be made 
for the clothing, and when we do that, when we made those tests, we find that the low er 
the income is the smaller is the amount of clothing necessary for the wife. When the 
income is very low the wife spends about 50 per cent as much as the husband 

Senator Hollis. And in order to protect the weaker sex the income should be that 
much more. 


4 


MINIMUM WAGE BILL. 


Mr. Ogburn. You can determine at various figures what it is, and similarly you can 
figure on how much should be allowed for various items of expenses, rent, and fuel, 
and so on. Heat is turned on 180 days a year in Washington, on the average, and we 
know that it will take about 150,000 British thermal units per room per day, and we 
can figure out the differentials in the climate, etc. This is simply to show to you 
that you can approach the subject from an objective basis. 

Senator Hollis. And what do you figure the annual sum would be to clothe a family 
decently and comfortably? 

Mr. Ogbitrn. Well, I did not figure that exactly. The words “decently and com¬ 
fortably” bother me. 

Senator Hollis. You are the best judge that we have of that. 

Mr. Ogburn. That would cause us to differentiate between three or four budget 
levels. One would be the bare subsistence level- 

Senator Hollis. That is so that they could have enough clothing to keep out of jail? 

Mr. Ogburn. Or the hospital. Another would be the minimum comfort level, 
which would give more comfort, and we have a level above that which would give the 
person an opportunity to develop his faculties, and so on. But for clothing, the budget 
which I drew up last summer for the consideration of the board, in that I allowed the 
following figures: Per man, $76; per woman, $55; for children from 11 to 16, $44; for 
children from 7 to 10, $33; and for children under 6, $30. 

Senator Hollis. Is that the minimum? 

Mr. Ogburn. Yes, sir. 

Senator Hollis. And is that a fair average? 

Mr. Ogburn. That is what I call the minimum. If you purchase clothing in quan¬ 
tity probably you can get an idea of what it means. I mean if you purchase them for 
a group. It is not every individual that will have a sweater, some may have, and some 
may not have. But if we compute the thing for a group, we compute it on the average, 
and it comes out sometimes in fractions. So, when I say eight-tenths of a sweater, 
that is what it means on the average for the group. That would be buying articles 
something like this, and I will give you this so you may get the idea. They would 
want per year: Gloves and mittens, 24 pairs; hats and caps, 1£; overalls, 1£; over¬ 
coats, 0.2; shirts, 3.3; shoes, 2.8; socks, 16 pairs; suits, £; sweaters, 0.2; trousers, 0.8; 
underwear, 3.5. That figure, leading that off as a sample, will give you an idea what 
amount a man would buy in the way of clothing. 

Senator Hollis. Now as to fuel. What is your conclusion about fuel? 

Mr. Ogburn. Why, we allowed in this budget for fuel and lights combined, $62. 

The Chairman. And another item is rent. 

Mr. Ogburn. Well, then it is almost impossible to say what rent is, without fixing 
upon a particular city, and determining upon the situation in those various cities, and 
I am not sure just what the rent situation would be in Washington, but we used for 
rent about 20 per cent of the budget- 

The Chairman. Then you would add 25 per cent to the other items? 

Mr. Ogburn. Yes. Perhaps I can get it better in this way. The Bureau of Labor 
Statistics made a study of the cost of living in Washington, D. C., as requested by 
Congress, in the spring of 1917, and made the figures for the year 1916, and they assem¬ 
bled their data for a family of five, a man and wife and three children; and they 
found that in the District of Columbia in 1916—and the cost of living has increased 
probably nearly 50 per cent since then—and they found that the families which 
got an income of less than $1,150, on the average, were in debt; that those that got 
$1,150 were not in debt, and that those that got more than $1,150 were out of debt and 
had a surplus. That figure is of considerable value as it bears upon the District of 
Columbia, and you will be interested to know how that $1,150 was expended. I can 
read off the items to you, so that you can get an idea of the cost of living for a family 
in 1916. It amounted to $458 for food, $225 for rent, $67 for fuel and light, $124 for 
clothing, and $275 for sundries. A man’s clothing cost $43 and a woman’s clothing 
cost $30, and the clothing for three children $51. They allowed $47 for insurance, 
$10 was expended for religious purposes, $33 for furniture, $9 for books and magazines 
and newspapers, and for theaters and moving pictures and kindred amusements 
$11 was spent, and for sickness, $35. Those are actual figures as they would apply 
to a family of five, a man and his wife and three children. You can see from those 
figures how the cost of living was at that time. 

But to proceed to the point, I want to say that I approach the study of what is a 
minimum wage in this way: In the first place, last summer I drew up a budget in 
consultation with a number of experts, after a study of some 600 family schedules 
collected in the New York shipbuilding district, and 1 based it upon close analysis, 
and this close analysis for the last summer showed that it came to between thirteen 
hundred and fifty and fourteen hundred dollars. 





MINIMUM WAGE BILL. 5 

The Chairman. Right there. Was there a minimum wage fixed in that industry? 

Mr. Ogburn. There was no minimum wage in that industry. 

The Chairman. What was the result of these figures that you had in that budget? 
I thought that the Labor Board did fix a minimum wage in that industry. 

Mr. Ogburn. No; that was the Shipbuilding Labor Adjustment Board, which is 
another body. 

Senator Hollis. And the wage was fixed by that body? 

Mr. Ogburn. They have set the wages, but I do not think that the board has ever 
declared a minimum in the wages that they set. The National War Labor Board 
has had before them in printed form the budgetary studies that I have made, and 
it was made for them. They, however, did not adopt any wage, that is, a minimum 
wage. This may have been because they did not want to, or it may have been be¬ 
cause the cases that came before them varied—showed varied conditions in the various 
parts of thecountry, and conditions were changing, and there were many other reasons 
why a minimum wage should not be adopted, but they had the data before them to 
show the cost of living. 

I wanted to point out to you how I got at the question of what the minimum wage is. 
That budget was between $1,350 and $1,400. I think that $1,386 was the budget that 
I drew up last summer, and I went over three budgets which had been drawn up in six 
years; one of them was drawn up by Mr. Chapin, and was used, or was to be used, by 
the Russell Sage Foundation. I took this budget, which was made in 1907, as official, 
and it was between eight hundred and nine hundred dollars. I took the factory com¬ 
mission budget, drawn up by the New York Factory Commission, which was drawn 
up in 1914, and the New York Board of Estimates budget, which was drawn up by the 
bureau of personal service of that board, and I applied the increases in the cost of 
living which had taken place since those budgets were made and brought them up to 
date, and all of them came to about $1,350 or $1,400, except one. Then I took my 
budget, bringing it up to date by applying the increased cost of living. They came 
to very nearly my budget. I took another way of approximating the thing. I took 
the food and found out how much the food would cost, and gave them the requisite 
number of calories. We have a large number of budget studies, and we know what the 
level of what we call the minimum subsistence of food. is. and we know that food is 
about 43 per cent of the budget. Then I got my food budget and I assumed that at 
43 per cent, and that also came to between $1,350 and $1,400. 

So last summer it seems to be pretty true that the cost of living must have been 
around thirteen hundred and fifty and fourteen hundred dollars for a family of a man 
and his wife and three children—between thirteen hundred and fifty and fourteen 
hundred dollars. Since that time the cost of living has increased, in such a way that 
it could be maintained, by both the friends and enemies of this bill, that to-day, at 
the present time, in the large eastern cities, this minimum level of subsistence, which is 
sometimes called a bare subsistence level, must to-day be about $1,500. I think that 
that could be maintained, as I say, by a great deal of data and evidence, both by the 
friends of the bill and by the enemies of the bill alike. In other words, it must cost 
pretty nearly that much in the large eastern cities for a man to live to-day with his 
family so that he can maintain his physical existence. 

The Chairman. Now, we know that a great many families get less than that. Will 
you tell us what, in your opinion, if you do not know as a matter of fact, those families 
do? What is the result of a lesser wage with those families? 

Mr. Ogburn. Well, in the large eastern cities at the present time families with three 
children—it is very questionable whether there are very many getting less than that. 
We have in that bureau- 

Senator Hollis. We know that there are a great many getting less than that in the 
District of Columbia. 

Mr. Ogburn. Perhaps that may be. There may be families who are getting less 
than that, but there are a good many families of them who will not have three children. 

Senator Hollis. Let me invite your attention to that directly. It is my observation 
that they get incomes in some other way, either through their gardens or by working 
nights. Of course, the alternative is that they run in debt or are objects of charity; 
they are underclothed or undernourished. 

Mr. Ogburn. I was going to try to answer that question and say, in the first place, 
that there are some of the families where the wages we know are less than $1,500 a 
year. Some of the families may not have that number of children and they may get 
along in that way. This figure of $1,500 is arranged for an average; that is to say, 
we know there is such a thing as variability. One individual may require only 
3,100 calories and another may require 3,900 calories. In an average there are always 
some, a small percentage of that, that can get along at less than that figure. This 
figure that I have drawn is for the average. Then, there are others who supplement 
the average by the working of their children and by keeping of a garden, and so on. 


G 


MINIMUM WAGE BILL. 


There are others who are slowly starving. I do not mean by that that the starvation 
is like that in India, but a slow starvation in which it is largely a question of the sys¬ 
tem becoming weakened and disease sets in, and really it is attributable to malnutri¬ 
tion, which is just one phase of the starvation problem. Of course, there are a good 
many of them who cut down on clothing and very oftentimes it happens; and this is 
one of the startling things about these studies, that families that get low incomes will 
cut down on their food in order to take a certain amount of recreation, and that has 
forced all of us in our budget studies to put in certain items for recreation, and we know 
that that is necessary because we find, as a matter of fact, that they will go without 
food in order to take a certain amount of recreation. In other words, recreation is 
as an essential proposition as food. All of these budgets do not allow that, but some 
of them do. 

Senator Hollis. Do you consider that a $3 minimum for Government employees 
in the United States is unreasonable—I mean unreasonably high? 

Mr. Ogburn. My data this morning has been concerned with the large eastern 
cities. It is certainly not unreasonably high. The chairman asked a good many 
questions in the matter of the variation of the cost of living in the different parts of 
the country. It is probably true that food costs somewhat less in the Southern States 
than it does in the Eastern States. That is not due to the price of food as to the differ¬ 
ent dietaries that are used there. If you applied the same dietary there would be 
very little difference. There are some differences in the standards of living in regard 
to fuel necessary, and perhaps in the clothing, although it is not so widely varied as is 
thought. But looking at the question, I can say that it is probably true that the 
variation in different parts of the country is not nearly as great as is customarily 
assumed, and I would be inclined to think that $1,500 is a living minimum wage in a 
large eastern city, and that there would be a very few places where a thousand dollars— 
where it would get down to that. It is quite conceivable in certain rural districts and 
far outlying portions you could find a person living on a great deal less than that; 
but I do not imagine that a good many of the employees would be employed under 
such conditions as that. 

There can be no question as to the tremendous increase in cost of 
living and these increases have fallen heaviest on the low-paid em¬ 
ployees and this bill will be a great blessing to them. 

As to its probable cost, it has been hard to get a correct estimate 
to date from the various departments and independent bureaus. 
Senator Jones, chairman of the Senate subcommittee of the Com¬ 
mittee on Education and Labor, tried to get a correct estimate from 
the departments, but was unable to do so on account of the great 
turnover in this class of labor and the rapid changes that are taking 
place in the various branches of the Government. 

The following estimate was secured in 1914 and with increases 
granted in the mechanical departments as well as in other branches 
from time to time your committee feels that the passage of this bill 
will not entail any greater increases than estimated here rather the 
increase will be considerably less: 


Estimated annual increase in appropriations. 


Department. 

Number of 
persons 
affected. 

Increase in 
appropria¬ 
tions. 

White House . 

State Department. . 

7 

56 

$1,920 
14,600 
3,745,216 
8,700,000 

± 1 cdioLU y . 

War Department 1 . . 

Department of Justice. . 

11,411 
19,100 

Post Office Department: . 

Departmental. 

Postal Service. . H ^ 

# yo 

loo, 174 

4,887,505 
2,439,554 
2,191,278 
602,577 
269,226 
108,144 

Navy Department (except Mare Island Navy Yard) 

Interior Department i . . . 

Department of Agriculture. . . 

11, 

8,728 

4,904 

2,447 

707 

537 

Department of Commerce 1 . .. . 

Department of Labor. . 

Total in departmental service.. 

60,161 

23,118,194 




























MINIMUM WAGE BILL. 


7 


Estimated annual increase in appropriations —Continued. 


Department. 

Number of 
persons 
affected. 

Increase in 
appropria¬ 
tions. 

Miscellaneous establishments: 

Smithsonian Institution. 

301 

30 

41 

56 

1,660 

40 

180 

5 

$108,845 
10,463 
8,120 
16,800 
432,484 
7,420 
52,290 
1,080 

Botanic Garden. 

Civil Sendee Commission. 

Federal Trade Commission. 

Government Printing Office. 

Panama Canal (Washington only). 

Interstate Commerce Commission. 

Alaskan Engineer Commission. 

Total United States Government emplovees... 

62,474 
3,812 

23,755,696 
1,248,510 

District of Columbia employees... 

Grand total. 

66,286 
460 

25,004,206 
69,836 

Add Mare Island Navy Yard. 


66,746 

25,074,042 


RECAPITULATION OF TOTAL ESTIMATES. 


Executive departments, all branches. 

60,161 
2,313 

$23,118,194 
637,502 

Miscellaneous establishments, commissions, Government Printing Office, etc_ 

Total United States Government employees. 

62,474 
3,812 

23,755,696 
1,248,510 

District of Columbia employees. 

Grand total. 

66,286 

25,004,206 



1 Subject to some modifications on account of the inclusion of part-time employees, such as charwomen, etc. 


For years efforts have been made to regulate child labor, and it was 
only recently that this House passed a child-labor bill. That measure 
affects the great industries of this country; it removes the long 
existing practice of exploiting the child of tender years in the fac¬ 
tories, mines, and workshops of our Nation. The Members of this 
House believed that those children should be in school and should 
have the opportunity to build up their minds and bodies under health¬ 
ful conditions. Is it not equally our duty toward the low-paid Gov¬ 
ernment employee to see that he has a sufficient wage to enable him 
to bring up his children under decent and healthful conditions of 
mind and body ? 

This measure will foster true Americanism and is one of the few 
sound measures of preparedness that the Sixty-sixth Congress has 
had placed before it. 

There may be some who will say that $3 per day is too high a rate 
for the men and women employed by the Government. But would 
they like to labor for or try to raise a family and live on that or less ? 
Wages of the unskilled laborers all over the country have been 
advancing, and they are not far from this rate. Strikes and walk¬ 
outs are taking place among the unorganized, unskilled workers all 
over the country for advances in wages to meet increased prices, and 
this will continue until the low-paid workers in industry are given 
greater consideration. 

The underpaid Government employees are mostly unorganized, but 
even where they are organized they do not strike to have their griev¬ 
ances adjusted. They depend upon the Government or Congress to 
treat them fairly; and here is our opportunity, though long delayed, 
to make the Government of the United States the model employer. 

































8 


MINIMUM WAGE BILL. 


In striking contrast with this Government’s treatment of its 
employees is that of Denmark, as shown in the following extract 
from our consul general, E. D. Winslow, at Copenhagen: 

[Extract from report of Consul General E. D. Winslow, Copenhagen, Denmark, Feb. 4, 1916. Printed in 
Supplement to Commerce Reports No. 4a, Mar. 29, 1916.] 

DENMARK. 

As the hardships of the war fell most heavily on those having fixed incomes and 
salaries, the Government has increased the salaries of its employees to meet the 
higher cost of living. 

The printed record of the hearings before the subcommittee con¬ 
tains a number of heartrending stories of Government employees who 
have worked in different departments for a number of years. They 
tell of their struggle for existence; how the family has had to depend 
upon neighbors and others for charity, and in some instances were 
not able to purchase any new clothing for a period covering seven 
or eight years; and others testified that they had not entered a 
moving-picture show or other place of amusement in four years. 

Statements were made by individuals and those representing 
organizations of employees of conditions in the Government service, 
where employees were compelled to work overtime without extra 
compensation; also, complaints about favoritism shown in the 
matter of promotions, where length of service did not receive con¬ 
sideration; of misrepresentation by correspondence schools and others 
of the advantages afforded the Government employee. But your 
committee could not consider these complaints, as the bill before it 
pertained only to the question of salaries, and therefore confined 
itself to the subject matter of the bill. 

It is the belief of your committee that this is the first time in the 
history of this Government that the true conditions as affecting the 
cost of living of its low-salaried employees has ever been brought to 
the attention of any committee of Congress and so thoroughly in¬ 
vestigated as has been the case in this instance. 

The passage of this bill will have a tendency to bring into the 
Government service the very highest type of young men and young 
women to fill the vacancies in the lower grades and will give the 
Government the first choice in the labor market as against private 
employers, thus tending to make the Government service highly 
efficient, for, after all, well-paid workers do their work efficiently 
and economically. Cheap work is always poor work, and with the 
right standard set the Government will profit by stimulating interest 
on the part of its employees. 


o 




Caylord Bros. 

Makers 

1 Syracuse, N. Y. ^ 
PAT. JAN. 21. 1908 1 


























